My Lords, our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of this country's security and makes a valuable contribution to NATO's strategy of war prevention. While we welcome contributions to the non-proliferation debate, this
1706
Government already pursue the policies which they consider most effective to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promote peace and stability.

My Lords, although that may be the case, do the Government agree with me that the three options in the article I have in mind cover the field well and provide the possibility of a better development than the present position? If the House will forgive me, perhaps I may say this briefly—

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he has read the article in question and whether he recalls that there are three options. The first is to continue as we are; the second relates to nuclear disarmament; and the third is to take a fresh approach to the nuclear question on an international basis. That proposal is made by Mr. John Gordon, a distinguished civil servant and one-time adviser on these matters in the Foreign Office. Therefore, will the noble Lord not dismiss the idea as being put forward by a candidate for nuclear disarmament?

My Lords, obviously I would dismiss the idea if it were put forward by the noble Lord. There are, in fact, two papers published by ISIS. I have read the article to which I presume the noble Lord refers, which sets out three options. As the noble Lord quite rightly points out, the first of those options is very much the option which Her Majesty's Government pursue. For the reasons that I gave in my original Answer, we shall continue to pursue that option.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it might assist the House to put the Question into perspective if it knew that the ISIS organisation does not put forward proposals, but that those who write for it express their own private views? The private views on the subject of nuclear weapons of those who wrote these papers are fairly well known. Finally, the project is funded by an American organisation called the Ploughshares Fund, USA, the name of which I think sufficiently indicates its ideology.

My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord's very well informed contribution to the debate. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, the first of the options put forward is in fact the option that Her Majesty's Government pursue and will continue to pursue.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is important to consider carefully the source of unsolicited briefing on defence matters? In the old days almost all briefing came, directly or indirectly, from the Russians. Then the CIA caught up and one had to watch that aspect, too. It so happens that I have read the article and investigated the background of ISIS. I find it completely honourable. I even looked at the grants given by the Ploughshares Fund, USA organisation and
1707
concluded that a suspicious person might convict that body of some pro-Israeli bias. However, on the whole it is completely harmless and very informative.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British nuclear deterrent could be abolished in the twinkling of an eye, but that it would take 10 years or more to re-establish it, during which time world circumstances might change radically? Is it not sensible, therefore, to continue the nuclear deterrent at least for the time being?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The nuclear deterrent has contributed a great deal to our security over the years. We are committed to securing an unconditional, indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, it would be naïve to think that one could "disinvent" the nuclear deterrent overnight. Similarly, it would be unwise to remove our own nuclear deterrent unilaterally in the way that some suggest.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I support wholeheartedly what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said about ISIS? It is a non-party organisation entirely devoted to informing your Lordships and Members of Parliament on questions of the day. It does not pretend to be a lobbying organisation.

Furthermore, perhaps I may support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the Ploughshares Fund, USA. It is a charity which has been set up for certain purposes. I shall not read out the grants that have been given, but refer to King's College Centre for Defence Studies, and so on. Perhaps we may take it that it is not a pressure group in that sense.

Coming back to the Question, will the noble Lord confirm that there are three options? Will he confirm, too, that the Government are taking into consideration the three options rather than simply sticking to the line that they have announced time and again? Is there no flexibility in the Government's view?

My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. I can only say that I note what he put forward in the form of questions. I note, too, his introductory comments regarding the three different options. I made my response quite clear in answer to his noble friend Lord Jenkins. There were three options. The Government welcome the fact that the first is the option which Her Majesty's Government continue to pursue. We shall consider other options as we welcome debate in these matters; but we do not believe that those options are as worthy of consideration as the first option.

My Lords, will the noble Lord consider opening his mind a little on this point? Is he aware that the second option—it is the one I ask him
1708
to consider—is not a nuclear disarmament proposal? If he will open his mind he may find points in the article which the Government could at least consider.

My Lords, I believe that if anyone should consider opening his mind it is the noble Lord opposite. Her Majesty's Government have listened to the noble Lord on this subject for a great many years. Many of my colleagues have answered the noble Lord's questions. I do not believe that there is much more that we can add.